Alla Cranham:

You wrote:  "May be reading a little bit of basic immunology textbooks will help?"

That's sarcasm and entirely inappropriate.  It's nothing but a form of ad hominem attack - attempting to belittle your opponent.

You wrote: "I can't see anything wrong with preparing immune system for possible invaders at the right time"

I can.  You're assuming that there's no harm in forcing the body into forming antibodies through an unnatural method.  The fact that these artificially-created antibodies are not permanent, as they are with naturally developed viral antibodies, indicates that vaccinations are not a normal or effective way to prevent disease.

You also assume that prevention of disease is, by definition, a good thing.  That may not be true.  Parents of children who go through normal childhood illnesses often report that they're healthier afterwards.   This could easily be because our bodies require illness to hone a healthy immune system.

You wrote: "Cases of adverse reactions to vaccinations and their side effects are only due to lack of diagnostic information on particular patient at the time of vaccination."

Where is the documentation to this effect?

 

 

Heidi,

Where is documentation to proof the opposite? Do you think clinical trials are a joke?

P.S. Humoral immunity ‘memory’ can last up to ten years - this is according to Immunology textbooks. Of course, it is not permanent. Do you prefer to suffer from the disease and develop antibodies for future protection or do you prefer to prevent development of this disease in the first place by having protection at least for few years?

P.P.S. What is "artificially-created antibodies" (excuse my ignorance)?

 

 

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Alla,

In my opinion the best way to prevent the development of ANY disease is to maintain a strong immune system...vaccines are designed to WEAKEN the immune system and are therefore not to be recommended for anyone who truly values their health.

Read The Medical Mafia by Ghislaine Lanctot

Blobby

---

Robin Allan
Chek Practitioner
Natural Health Coach

http://www.robinallan.com


robin_allan@hotmail.com

07967-366470

Blobby,

I am talking about adaptive (specific) immunity. How can you strengthen this immune system if it does not know what antibodies to make in advance?  

 

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Alla wrote:  "Where is documentation to proof the opposite?"

You made the claim, not me.  It is not up to me to provide proof of the opposite.  It's a rather slippery twist of logic to imply that it is..

"Do you think clinical trials are a joke?"

All to often, they're nothing more than a sick joke.  Frequently, the people who are most likely to respond to a placebo are first eliminated from trials - which makes the trial that's supposedly testing against placebo dishonest from the beginning.  The researchers themselves all too often are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical firms or have a financial interest in the outcome.  The results that are published and claimed often cannot be supported by the data from the trials themselves.  The journals in which they're published all too frequently are largely financed by the companies whose products are being trialed.  All of these factors lead to dishonest results - as is so clearly shown by the real results, the ones of use of these products on thousands, even millions, of people.  These real-life trials only too often result in deaths and demonstration of the lack of efficacy of the trials that got them on the market.  So yes, I do think that clinical trials are often a very bad joke.  Sadly, the people who take these products are the joke's punchline.

"Humoral immunity ‘memory’ can last up to ten years - this is according to Immunology textbooks."

Quoting textbooks is meaningless.  The fact is that many, if not most, of the vaccines last far less than ten years.  The HPV vaccines - the ones that are the subject of this discussion - last, at most, half that time.

"Do you prefer to suffer from the disease and develop antibodies for future protection or do you prefer to prevent development of this disease in the first place by having protection at least for few years?"

I prefer to suffer from the disease (in most cases).  No, it isn't fun.  However, it beats the risks of vaccines.  It beats not allowing my body to build its own defense system.  It beats the horrifically high rates of diabetes and asthma that result from vaccinations.

"What is "artificially-created antibodies" (excuse my ignorance)?"

I don't think I'll excuse your ignorance - especially since the comment is intended to be insulting.  And, I described what was meant by artifically-created antibodies.  They're ones that are developed as a result of the assault of a vaccine.

 

Your attitude is preconceived, Heidi.

I can only suggest you to Google 'Immunology Tutorial', and it's up to you if you wish to take it as an insult or not as well as to choose whether to suffer from disease or not, but I believe this may help to make things clearer for you. 

 

 

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

"Your attitude is preconceived, Heidi."

That's a nonsense statement.  Attitude as a preconceived thing?  That's true for everyone.  Certainly, it is for you.  And me, too.  But, it's obvious that your intent in making that statement was to imply a certain negative quality in me.  That's an ad hominem attack.  Frankly, people who stoop to such methods in debate are generally demonstrating their inability to argue honestly.  If that's not the case for you, then please respond to the arguments. 

"...I believe this may help to make things clearer for you."

That's a condescending statement and adds nothing to the discussion.

You apparently choose to adhere to the allopathic paradigm regarding vaccinations.  I do not.  You're entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to attempt to support it with ad hominem attacks, which seems to be your primary means of argument, not only with me but also against others. 

 

Alla,

Why does the medical profession have this obsession with "specific" immunity?

The immune sytem is designed to defend against pathogens as it comes into contact with them...NOT BEFORE ...this is the way nature or God designed us.

Nature ALWAYS knows best and man usually screws up BIG TIME whenever he tries to improve on nature.

The Scientific Types seem to think that God or Nature is random,unintelligent,faulty and in need of some "scientific" intervention.

I would rather deal with the disease than the vaccine...I had Measles and Chicken Pox as a child and my immune system coped just fine.

Blobby

 

---

Robin Allan
Chek Practitioner
Natural Health Coach

http://www.robinallan.com


robin_allan@hotmail.com

07967-366470

Linnebev, you are so correct, look up The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket - Part One.  which will also have Part two..  It is mind blowing..

Do people know that trials of vaccines were done on orphans and the intellectually handicapped, doesnt that say enough, try it out on people who have no one to protect them.   I wonder just how much these places recieved from the pharmaceutical companies for this???

 Surely the fact that Dr's and pharmaceutical drugs are the fourth cause of death in America is enough to wake people up to their deceptions..

This from the British Medical Journal might be an eye opener..

DRUGS RESEARCH:  Companies spend a tiny fraction on the poor and the developing world..... so how can they say that they are out to erradicate disease..

 

Any of you who desperately cling to the hope that the pharmaceutical industry is there for the benefit of mankind need to look at the latest statistics for global health research. 

While health research spending is rising by about $10bn (£5.5bn) every year, virtually none of it is going towards the diseases that afflict the poor and the developing world.

In 2003 – the most recent year when figures were available – around $129bn (£72bn) was spent on health research, but less than 7 per cent went on communicable diseases.

The rest, which came from drug companies and government agencies, concentrated on the ‘lifestyle’ diseases of the West.

The Global Forum for Health research reckons that the remainder came from philanthropic and non-profit organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

If so, that means that drug companies spend almost nothing every year on diseases of the developing world and of the poor – those sectors where they can’t get a handsome return.

(Source:  British Medical Journal, 2006; 333: 936).

I've had articles published on this and related issues.  (My name is Heidi Stevenson, neé Monson.)  Since the subject at hand in this thread is vaccinations, here is one that provides the smoking gun on childhood vaccinations and whether they've had any significant effect on deaths from the disease they're supposed to prevent:  "Vaccinations Hoax - Not Effective and at Worst Harmful", originally published in Natural News.

The upshot is that documentation from the Journal of the American Medical Association on death rates from illnesses that we're "protected" from by vaccinations cannot be shown to have anything to do with the vaccinations.  JAMA states that the best way to determine the effectiveness of a treatment is by studying the death rates.  So, by their own documentation, it can easily be seen that the childhood vaccinations cannot be justified based on their own definition of how efficacy can best be determined.

 

Natural medicine approach is fine for chronic conditions. When it comes to serious infection, the other than allopathic approach is ILLEGAL (at least in the U.K.) according to the Code of Practice for Complementary and Alternative practitioners (in case you did not know, Heidi).

My last comment to your posting is: anybody can stick the labels to other people's opinion, but can you stick a label to yours?

The difference between my opinion and yours is that my opinion is based on FUNDAMENTAL science beliefs, and yours is on ASSUMTIONS or better to say GOSSIPS spreading out by those who are not able to make money from anything else.  

And whilst you stay ignorant in science subject (which looks like you are) – there is no point in our discussion. You need to do your science home work first!

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

"When it comes to serious infection, the other than allopathic approach is ILLEGAL (at least in the U.K.) according to the Code of Practice for Complementary and Alternative practitioners (in case you did not know, Heidi)."

To begin with, no one here is discussing treatment of an existing illness, so your comment about the legality of such treatment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.  Then, there are your continuing attempts at condescension, which are rude and does not further the discussion, either.

Yelling by using caps also does nothing to further the discussion.  Claims that your statements are based on science beliefs and that mine are based on assumptions and gossip are not supported by any evidence or logic.

Your own attempt at making connections that have nothing to do with each other - by trying to tie treatment of infections with prevention of them - is demonstrative of either a lack of ability to understand what does and does not relate, indicating a lack of ability to understand what constitutes good science, or it indicates a desire to obfuscate by redirection of the subject.

You have not responded to the points made in my article, most particularly that allopathic claims of vaccination benefits can be shown to be invalid by looking at their own journal's documentation of infectious disease rates and comparing it with the introductions of vaccinations.  Instead, you use condescension and ad hominem attacks.  It is most intriguing that your comments do not respond to the points made.

Be warned..... Ceravix or Gardasil.why would you want to put any of these into your child..... this is a 100million business.it has nothing to do with your child it has everything to do with money.have you not woken up to who runs this world yet, if you believe your PM or president is, then your still living in your matchbox and living like solider ants, i think your referred as followers.it all in the hands of a small group of people that own all the banks, media etc.for those that say how could you not protect ur kids by not given them the injection. do you really know what's in it? no u dont, u are the same people who believe everything u read in the paper.google those drugs and do ur homework, since i told the school i did not want my daughter having it, i have had 4 phone calls trying to talk me into it, they even told my daughter she could sign for her self and tried to encourage her to do that.... there is more to this that meets the eye.like the women told me on the phone when i asked her if this drug 100% worked,she said. well no that will take a few years like any new drug,,, that said it all. so i told her then as my daughter is 12years i would wait those few years, and then see, if i want it....... thank God the Uk are not forcing it like they did in the usa. and they think they have rights there...... ??? what rights it seems they dont have a say over what happens to there kids..

I don't think this has been publisised in the media in UK - if atall?

Interesting!

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nobel_prize_bribery/2008/12/12/161399.html

Adrienne.

 

From what I have researched, and I've researched a lot, as I have had cervical cancer, there is no proof that vaccines AT ALL are an effective form of immunisation against infectious diseases. It's almost insulting to suggest that they are a better form of immunity ( against having the infections themselves) for childhood diseases. The statistics on so called "herd immunity" speak for themselves. The only indicator that the vaccine companies use as proof that their vaccine has successfully created immunity is the presence of antibodies. This is scientifically unsound. Viruses do not enter the body via  intra-muscular injections. They go through many complex pathways and have many indicators of sound immunity. If you look you will find that conspiricy theory or not, the argument behind the vaccine debate can be broken down with plenty of available scietific evidence. There is already informaion from studies on this particular claim, on the World Health Organisation website itself stating that there is no significant link between the virus and contracting cervical cancer. The vaccine companies are just relying on you not looking for evidence and believing their commercials. There have also been no long term studies held on any of these vaccines as they have been released straight onto the market. They are not bound by the same checks as legalized drugs and therefore, are able to do this. If you really look at how the whole vaccine industry started, i.e "Edward Jenners" studies or to be more scientifically correct unethical study on a young boy, you will see how ridiculous it really is. Cancer is a twentieth century disease anyway. By that I mean it has become epidemic. All you need to do is ask yourself why, and there lies your prevention against cancer. Incidentally homoeopathy has been around for about 200 years and has not one single case of side effects or cases of death and has been scientifically proven to be viable. It is not just the reasoning behind how homoeopathy works that can be examined but how it is diagnosed and administered. We are all living in a world where we have our clothes bought off the peg, food preprepared for us, school "teaching" us. When we walk away and start taking responsibility for our own lives, instead of leaving it to the "experts" then we will be able to understand how to take care of ourselves and protect ourselves from these modern day dieseases. You cannot poison yourself 'well'. There is no quick fix. I say skip the vaccine and take good care of yourself.